Where did I say I was "going to comment on many of the models in neoclassical economics"? Quote where I said that to prove I lied.

You see, the problem is that you don't read very well. All of your criticisms here are off the mark, except perhaps for the ones on the semantic issue of what counts as neoclassical economics. Again, I mean to focus on that issue in an upcoming article.

But I don't want to take the time to go through all of your misreadings in these comments. You said, for example, that I don't know what ceteris paribus laws are. I quoted Alfred Marshall who said exactly what I said about them, and you misread both of us as talking about "hiding inconvenient observations." No, that's not the point.

The point is there are exceptions to regularities found in special systems of nature, because those systems interact outside the laboratory, whereas the special science abstracts away that interaction to get at the underlying nomic relation. So the prediction is that there would be such and such a regularity under such and such conditions. Those conditions result from the externalized factors.

The concept of a ceteris paribus law is controversial, though, so there are many ways of understanding them, as you can tell from the Stanford Encyclopedia article on them. One of them is the one I gave.

And I proved how cheap and superficial many of your interpretations are when I showed that you must have given only a cursory glance at my exchange with the raving Trumpian Evangelical Tom Gilson. You're so eager to protect your dubious economics that you'd cite even his pitiful defense as corroborating evidence that I engage in strawman attacks. As if that counts for anything.

And it's the same for most of your criticisms. You're just missing the forest for the trees. You want me to engage with economics as though I were an economist, whereas I'm looking at the problem from a broader, sociological and philosophical perspective.

I'm not saying economics is suspect just because many people think it is. I'm not appealing fallaciously to popularity. I'm saying there are valid generalizations about economics that go well beyond the nitty-gritty of economic models. Those generalizations are either fair or useful or they're not. But quibbling about the details of this or that model doesn't cut the mustard.